# How Would You Vote?



## Architeuthis (Mar 31, 2007)

Unlike most recent Squid Polls, this one is completely serious. The question I pose is as follows:

Cigar Smokers are a varied group of people who don't really have a lot in common with each other aside from a love of cigars. Unlike other groups which have developed strong P.A.C.s and political lobbying groups, we just haven't done so. As a result of this the anti-cigarette people have literally destroyed our ability to smoke cigars in a large portion of America. Would YOU, despite your individual political feelings, vote AGAINST a local, state or federal candidate if you knew that candidate was going to support anti-cigar legislation once elected?

This poll will help me greatly, so please be honest and ask everyone on CigarLive to vote in this one. The results are going to remain PRIVATE although public comments are welcome of course. 

Thanks,

-Squid


----------



## Architeuthis (Mar 31, 2007)

Hmm... Fifteen views and only four votes. This doesn't look promising. America may be heading for a nation-wide complete cigar ban and none of you care?


----------



## Shelby07 (May 1, 2007)

This is a tough question. I didn't vote because I don't know how I'd vote. As much as I dislike smoking bans, the truth of the matter is that I can live with them as long as I can smoke in my own house or backyard, and that isn't going to stop. There are other issues that would take precedent over a smoking ban when it comes to who will represent me in government.

The only way to defeat a smoking ban is to let it go into effect and then have a group of affected people (restaurant and bar owners) ignore the law, get fined and fight the penalties in court to try to get it overturned.


----------



## terrasco-cl (Mar 4, 2007)

I believe in property rights. It's obvious to me that any official that would vote to ban smoking lacks the commitment to property rights that I believe in.


----------



## alanf (Jan 12, 2007)

Tough one. I'm not a one issue voter. All things being equal, the pro cigar candidate would get my vote. But all things are rarely equal. It would certainly be something that I would strongly weigh, since a person who was committed to a ban has an overreaching view of government - IMHO. Government has so much more to do than worry about smoking.


----------



## Shelby07 (May 1, 2007)

alanf said:


> Tough one. I'm not a one issue voter. All things being equal, the pro cigar candidate would get my vote. But all things are rarely equal. It would certainly be something that I would strongly weigh, since a person who was committed to a ban has an overreaching view of government - IMHO. Government has so much more to do than worry about smoking.


This I totally agree with. Every time I see something like a smoking ban or a helmet law it drives me crazy. People forget what our government was founded on. Every founding document from the constitution to the federalist papers was written with the idea of limited government. The phrase "Congress shall pass no law..." is the basis of our constitution. Our representatives live in a world where they need to pass laws to get reelected. If someone ran on the platform of not writing frivolous laws I'd vote for them in a heartbeat. But they probably wouldn't get reelected since they wouldn't have anything to show for their time in office.

...and that's about as deep as I'm gonna get in this.


----------



## prophetic_joe (May 5, 2007)

I agree with both Terrasco and AlanF on this. Smoking bans are really about property rights to me and the governments lack of respect for them. If the candidate were anti-cigar however but was very in line with my beliefs in other catergories while his opponent was vastly different I would have to vote with the candidate that more strongly followed my values.


----------



## Viper139-cl (May 6, 2007)

I would use it as one factor in my decision but I can homnestly say it would carry little weight, there are much more important issues that would sway my decision on one person or another.


----------



## SingleMaltScott-cl (Mar 19, 2007)

It's not just a 'one issue' issue. An elected official who would proactively go against the freedom to chose what you do or don't do, or tax it into oblivion is going to do the same in other areas. The loss of personal freedom is a VERY slippery slope and once you start down it, there is very little chance of turning back.
I don't want a politicain in office governing ANY of my personal choices. They have all already proven themselves to be the most incompetent group of 'executives' over the past 30 years.
It's become a standard joke with comedians that politicians cannot be trusted. I think it's a sad statement on our nation as a whole. I was in a book store today and saw Lee Iaacoca's book "Where have all the leaders gone?"
Good freakin question.


----------



## Architeuthis (Mar 31, 2007)

Thanks to everyone who has cast a vote and stated an opinion in this poll so far. It gives me an idea of what to look forward to. Please continue if you haven't voted yet.


----------



## CgarDan-cl (Apr 30, 2007)

I agree with what many others said. Although anti smoking laws suck I can't vote strictly based on this one criteria. There are issues that are much more important at least at the present time: terrorism, Iraq, healthcare, etc.

I think if voting for nosmoking ban the most effective way to do so is in local elections, borough, county , neighborhood, etc. As these officials will have very little to do with major issues affecting our country as a whole but have much more presence when it comes to the laws our particular neighborhoods follow


----------



## Dogwatch Dale-cl (Sep 7, 2005)

Viper139 said:


> I would use it as one factor in my decision but I can homnestly say it would carry little weight, there are much more important issues that would sway my decision on one person or another.


Same here. In local elections, the weight given on this issue may be higher than for a national election. Generally, candidates who feel as I do about issues that are very important to me will also be on our side of the smoking ban debate, but those other would issues carry the day.


----------



## BigBuddha76 (Mar 15, 2005)

terrasco said:


> I believe in property rights. It's obvious to me that any official that would vote to ban smoking lacks the commitment to property rights that I believe in.


I agree wholeheartedly with you. I have seen the blatant disregard to property rights...dont even get me started on eminent domain.


----------



## Cigarista-cl (Feb 27, 2007)

I have to vote for the overall "best." It's getting harder to pick those. I will definitely vote against any one who doesn't support our troops. Period. 

I saw a writeup years ago that suggested in all elections there be a choice of "none of the above." If "none of the above" won, you had to start over with new candidates. That has some appeal.


----------



## NullSmurf-cl (May 10, 2007)

There is no shortage of tobacco nazis. However, many races boil down to the best of bad choices where both candidates favor some kind of smoking legislation. A candidate has to be weighed on all the issues, not just tobacco. Anti-cigar is only one, albeit a weighted one. 

Colorado has the casinos to thank for saving out cigar bars and B&Ms. Unfortunately, the slim Republican majorities recently have failed to deal with the outrageous taxes on cigars (40% of MSRP). The Dems have both houses and the Gov now.


----------



## Kaybee (Apr 29, 2007)

Shelby07 said:


> This is a tough question. I didn't vote because I don't know how I'd vote. As much as I dislike smoking bans, the truth of the matter is that I can live with them as long as I can smoke in my own house or backyard, and that isn't going to stop. There are other issues that would take precedent over a smoking ban when it comes to who will represent me in government.
> 
> The only way to defeat a smoking ban is to let it go into effect and then have a group of affected people (restaurant and bar owners) ignore the law, get fined and fight the penalties in court to try to get it overturned.


I agree with this one. I think this one is a hard one. I look at so many things on how I vote. I also don't let any tell me how to vote. I always do my research. If the only down fall is that the person is against smoking I guess I will have to over look it.

As for if the ban go's into effect and you do have a group of owners that decide to go against it I think that anyone that takes place in it needs to give the owners some money to help with the fines. Because if the courts don't over turn it it could be expensive and the bar/restaurant could end up going out of business.

but that is my $0.02 and it is a good question Squid sorry I just can't vote in this one.

Kay


----------



## Architeuthis (Mar 31, 2007)

*Bumpity Bump*


----------



## Pumpkinsdad (Apr 21, 2007)

BigBuddha76 said:


> I agree wholeheartedly with you. I have seen the blatant disregard to property rights...dont even get me started on eminent domain.


I second that. Ohio actually is standing up for the public on eminent domain, however there is smoking ban voted by the people. One issue I have with that is certain cigar bars are to be smoke free because they are public places. Pretty sad that the sign says "CIGAR BAR" and the people feel it should still be smoke free.


----------



## Gatormoye (May 23, 2007)

As a cigar retailer I would for sure vote against someone against cigars. I find though people who are against my rights to smoke cigars and create a smoking ban will not protect me on the other matters that matter to me. I believe this is a personal rights issue, and mostly people on the left seem to want to take my rights away.


----------



## brow78 (Aug 14, 2007)

I do love to vote as much as anyone and I don't agree with the way cigars may get horns.Though I also dont believe you can simply vote on a official for one view. 

3. Religious/Political discussions are NOT allowed


I think this needs to be revised a bit as well to continue this talk I see it getting good.


----------



## BioSore (Aug 16, 2007)

I clicked the wrong vote... I wouldn't vote against a candidate simply because they are anti-cigar/smoking. Like the others, I am not a one-issue voter. I think that there are much more important things to worry about when deciding on who is going to be our representative. I think that in most elections, unless you go strictly by-the-party-line, often times both (major) candidates will have opinions that may lean towards your own.


----------



## Marlboro Cigars-cl (Feb 19, 2007)

This poll is pretty one-sided.


----------



## AragornElessar86 (May 21, 2007)

I agree with Shelby's first statement, though, as others have said, with all things being equal, i'd vote against an anti-smoking candidate.


----------



## Eespidie (Apr 7, 2007)

i undertsand that cigar smoking isnt the only issue but in my life and im sure even more so in the retailers life its a MAJOR issue, and if in my mind a candidate was even mildly close, id easily vote against the anti-cigar


----------



## oldfart54 (Sep 1, 2007)

This is an opinion poll. everyone knows about opinions, everyone has one, or knows one. or they're all holding office.


----------



## CubanoLou (Jun 2, 2007)

I just wouldn't place anyone in position that would try and change our ways. I think what we do and how we do it is our on decision.


----------



## havanitascigars-cl (Apr 29, 2007)

As I become older and see greater restrictions placed on us by the government I become more picky about who I vote for. In general, a candidate who supports smoking bans also supports other restrictions on personal liberty. The Constitution was written to protect us from these types of laws. As a society, we keep in the pursuit of life and happiness [wealth] we forget about liberty.

The basic premise of the Constitution was to ensure the rights of a minority are not trampled by the majority. Odd thing to think since democracy involves voting with the most popular person winning, but our elected officials are supposed to stand up individual rights. That which does not harm the masses should not be restricted. I am not just talking about smoking either. The Framers were concerned that only acts which infringe on the rights of other citizens in a harmful way should be passed. Laws should not be written to restrict people from irritating others.

And that is what smoking really is... an irritation. We, as a society, do not like to make decisions. We like people to tell us what to do and what is right and wrong. We also believe our values should be everyone elses. If someone does not like the fact a restaurant allows smoking, then do not eat at that restaurant. Instead, we legislate that the restaurant cannot allow smoking so that we can eat there. Where is the right of the owner protected? If he wishes to make a business decision that kills his business, then so be it. That is his right. The list of freedoms is incredible and most of them are merely irritations.

If you do not like a bar that allows smoking, then go somewhere else. An enterprising individual will see the demand and create a place for you.

You do not like what is on TV, then change the channel.
You do not like nude pictures in magazines, then do not buy them.
You do not like rap music, then do not listen to it.
Etc, etc, etc.

We should exercise our right to choose before we lose our ability to.


----------



## doblemaduro (Jun 24, 2007)

Getrid of the S.O.B.'s.


----------



## Architeuthis (Mar 31, 2007)

havanitascigars said:


> As I become older and see greater restrictions placed on us by the government I become more picky about who I vote for. In general, a candidate who supports smoking bans also supports other restrictions on personal liberty. The Constitution was written to protect us from these types of laws. As a society, we keep in the pursuit of life and happiness [wealth] we forget about liberty.
> 
> The basic premise of the Constitution was to ensure the rights of a minority are not trampled by the majority. Odd thing to think since democracy involves voting with the most popular person winning, but our elected officials are supposed to stand up individual rights. That which does not harm the masses should not be restricted. I am not just talking about smoking either. The Framers were concerned that only acts which infringe on the rights of other citizens in a harmful way should be passed. Laws should not be written to restrict people from irritating others.
> 
> ...


Very well stated!


----------



## happy1 (Jun 29, 2007)

I agree with Havanitascigars-most smoke nazi's are also the same that restrict personal freedoms for "the greater good" ie wich is socialism plain and simple.They try and ban smoking,guns,God,so in a word all my officials that believe in heavy cigar taxes also believe in liberalism and I do vote against them


----------



## ldostlund (Apr 19, 2007)

2 things i hate, intrusive government and the ACLU


----------



## tobacmon (May 17, 2007)

What good is he or she if they can't relax and enjoy a fine cigar---


----------

